from offices and honours for which richer citizens now became eligible who could lay no claim to the religious character of the old nobility. The Pentakosiomedimnoi, or men whose annual income was equal to 500 medimnoi (about 700 imperial bushels) of corn, the Hippeis or Knights (so called as possessing sufficient means to serve as horsemen) who had from 300 to 500 medimnoi, and the Zeugitai, or owners of a team of oxen, who possessed from 200 to 300, paid a graduated income-tax called Eisphora, on a capital which for members of the first class was rated at twelve times, for those of the second at ten times, and for those of the third at five times their yearly income,—the Pentakosiomedimnos who had simply his 500 bushels being, for instance, rated at 6000 drachmas, the Hippeus with 300 medimnoi at 3000, and the Zeugitês of 200 drachmas at 1000, or five times his yearly income. In the fourth or Thetic class, so called as including, and not as consisting only of, the Thetes, were placed all citizens whose property fell short of 200 drachmas a year. The members of this, the largest, class in the state were not liable to the direct taxation of the Eisphora, although they shared with the men of the wealthier classes the more permanent burden of indirect taxation in the form of import duties. Nor were they called upon to discharge the unpaid services of the state called Leitourgiai, liturgies, while in war they served only as light-armed infantry, or in armour provided for them by the state. On the other hand, they were ineligible to all public offices-the archonship and all military commands being open only to members of the first class, while certain minor offices might be filled by the Hippeis and Zeugitai, the former of whom were bound to serve as horsemen, the latter as heavy-armed infantry, at their own expense. Thus in the classification which excluded the Eupatrid whose income fell short of 500 medimnoi from the high offices which he regarded as his inalienable birthright, the spell of the ancient despotism of religion and blood was broken; and a further democratic element was introduced by the law which, while it confined the archonship to members of the first class, left the election of the archons to the Heliaia, or general council, which included not merely the men of the first three classes, but, as the Eupatrid would have termed them, the rabble of the fourth class. This law went even further, making the archons at the end of their year of office directly accountable to the public assembly and subject to an impeachment by it in case of misbehaviour.

The Probonleutic Council.

The power of this assembly was strengthened by the institution, attributed to Solon, of the Probouleutic Council of Four Hundred (in the proportion of one hundred for each tribe) who, like the archons, were to be elected by the whole people from the first class. This council, as its name

implies, was charged chiefly with the preparation of matters to be brought before the assembly, with the summoning and management of its meetings, and with the execution of its decrees.

of the four classes to the

Such, in the main, seems to have been the great work of Solon, a work accomplished just at a time when attempts like those of Kylon or Peisistratos, if made at that moment, might Relationship have crushed for ever the rising freedom of Athens, and achieved by a man who was charged with mad- tribes. ness for not following the example of those who had made themselves tyrants in other Hellenic cities. But Solon himself scarcely more than laid the foundations, and it is a common error which ascribes to him developements of the constitution belonging to a time later even than that of Kleisthenes. The members of the fourth and by far the largest class of citizens could have no further influence on the conduct of affairs than by the check, probably not always very effectual, which they exercised by electing the archons and examining them at the end of the year. But, more particularly, although a citizen of the first class who was not an Eupatrid was in point of money qualification eligible for the archonship, he could be neither archon nor a member of the Areiopagos, unless he also belonged to a tribe; and as the Probouleutic Council consisted of four hundred, or one hundred for each of the tribes, it followed that only members of the tribes could be elected to this council, and thus that the political position of non-tribal citizens, even if they belonged to the first class in the timocracy, was simply on a level with that of the fourth or Thetic class. All that the Solonian reform had done was to exclude from the archonship the poor Eupatrid and to admit to it the non-Eupatrid Pentakosiomedimnos, if he belonged to some tribe; but no one who did not possess the religious title could hold office, and thus Solon left the constitution, as he found it, practically oligarchic.

Later years of Solon.

Over the sequel of the career of Solon the mists of oral tradition have gathered thickly. His work as a legislator was done; but there remained the fear that others might destroy it or that he might be induced to impair it himself. He therefore bound the Athenians, we are told, by solemn oaths that for ten years, or, as some said, for a hundred years, they would suffer no change to be made in his laws, and then, to make it impossible that this change should come from himself, he departed on the long pilgrimage which is associated with the names of other legislators as great as himself, though less historical. That he visited Egypt and Kypros (Cyprus) is proved by his own words; but the time of the visit is undetermined, and that he cannot have sojourned with Amasis, seems to be clear from the fact that the reign of Amasis began at least a generation after the legislation of

G

Solon. Not more trustworthy chronologically is the exquisitely beautiful tale which relates the intercourse of Solon with the Lydian king Kroisos. It is clear that in the belief of Herodotos Solon visited Sardeis not more than six or seven years before the fall of the Lydian monarchy. The death of Atys which marked the turning-point in the unbroken happiness of Kroisos was followed, after two years only, by the war with the Persian Cyrus ; and the catastrophe occurred scarcely less than fifty years after the legislation of Solon. The story is manifestly a didactic legend setting forth the religious philosophy of the time, insisting on the divine jealousy which hates and punishes pride and self-satisfaction in mortal man, and virtually maintaining that happiness is a state which cannot be predicated of anyone before his earthly life has reached its close.

Usurpation of Peisistratos, and death of Solon.

The return of Solon to Athens was not to be followed by new reforms for the benefit of his countrymen. The tide had turned. In the struggle which ensued Solon, it is said, foresaw that Peisistratos must be the conqueror; but he strove in vain to rouse the Athenians to combine against the tyranny with which they were threatened. To no purpose he stood in his armour at the door of his house, and he could but console himself with the thought that he had done his duty, and reply to those who asked on what he relied to save himself from the vengeance of his enemies, 'On my old age.' Peisistratos, as the story goes, did him no harm; and the man who had done more than any who had gone before him to make his country free died in peace, full of years and with a fame which is the purer for the unselfishness which refused to employ for his own exaltation opportunities greater than any which fell to the lot even of Peisistratos himself.

CHAPTER XI.

THE TYRANNY OF THE PEISISTRATIDAI.

THE success of Peisistratos is of itself sufficient evidence of the slow growth of the democratic spirit at Athens. The people, Slow growth which a few generations later appears in the satire of cratic spirit the comic poet under the guise of the rude and intractable old man of the Pnyx, now show themselves apt disciples in that school of indifference which Solon had branded

of the demo.

at Athens.

1 Herod. i. 30. Plut. Sol. 26. Lewis, Credibility of E. R. H. ii. 532 et seq.

as the worst of civil crimes; and the man who has crushed his rivals may count on their passive acquiescence under his sway.

Seizure of the Akropolis by Pei

560 B.C. (?)

In this instance the successful plotter was supported by the faction (if such it was) of the Hyperakrians or men of the hills, whose part he professed to take. As their champion, he avowed (if we are to follow the story sistratos. of Herodotos) that he had narrowly escaped from the hands of his enemies who had fallen upon him in the country. Hastening to Athens, he pointed to the wounds, which he had inflicted on himself and on his mules, as attesting the truth of his tale, and prayed the people to grant him a body-guard to protect him against the weapons of the rival factions. The club-bearers by whom he was now attended may soon have become spearbearers; but in any case the disguise was thrown off when with their help Peisistratos seized the Akropolis, and Megakles with the Alkmaionids fled from the city.

Character of the administration of

Whatever may be the value of these details, there is no reason to question the general statement of Herodotos that, having thus made himself master of Athens, Peisistratos ruled wisely and well, without introducing a single constitutional change.1 With sound instinct he perceived Peisistratos. that the Solonian forms were sufficiently oligarchic in spirit to suit his purposes: and Athens, although in the power of a despot, had the benefit of a despotism lightened as it had been lightened in no other Hellenic city. But although the praise of Herodotos is confirmed by that of Thucydides,' who asserts that with no direct impost beyond an income-tax of five per cent. Peisistratos and his successors found means to carry on wars, to pay the cost of sacrifices, and to embellish the city, their wisdom and their other qualities failed to make the course of their despotism run smoothly.

and restoraof Peisi

stratos.

The first disaster, we are told, was not long in coming. They owed their power to the divisions among the people, and a coalition of the Pediaian and Paralian factions, in other Expulsion words, of the men belonging to the plains and the seacoast, was at once followed by their expulsion. But this success served only to renew and whet the strife of these parties, and Megakles, as the head of the Paralians, offered to restore the exiled tyrant on the condition that the latter should marry the daughter of the Alkmaionid chief. The terms were accepted; and to insure the assent and favour of the people, the conspirators, it is said, obtained the services of a tall and beautiful woman of the Paionian tribe, whom they placed in full armour on a chariot, and then made proclamation to the citizens that they should welcome Peisistratos whom Athene herself was bringing to her own Akro

polis. Hastening to the scene, they saw a majestic woman about six feet high, and taking her at once to be the virgin goddess, gave her worship and received the despot.1

Second ex

But the curse which rested on the house of Megakles cast its dark shadow on the mind of Peisistratos, who resolved that the marriage to which he had consented should be a pulsion of barren one; and the discovery of this design led Peisistratos. forthwith to the reconciliation of Megakles with Lykourgos, the head of the so-called Pediaian faction, and to the second expulsion of the tyrant, who, it is said, spent the next ten years chiefly in the Euboian Eretria, aiding Lygdamis to establish his despotism in Naxos, and in some way or other helping Thebes and other cities.

2

The story of his restoration implies a singular indifference and inactivity on the part of the Athenians. The invader occupied

Final restoration of the Peisistratidai.

Marathon without opposition; and when on his moving from that place the Athenians advanced against him, they allowed him to fall upon them while some were dicing and others sleeping after their morning meal. The sons of the tyrant rode towards Athens, and telling the citizens what had happened, bade them go home. The order was placidly obeyed, and for the third time Peisistratos was master of the Akropolis. He was resolved that this time no room should be left for the combinations which had twice driven him away. Megakles with his adherents left the country: the rest who had ventured to oppose him were compelled to give hostages in the persons of their children whom Peisistratos placed in the safe keeping of Lygdamis at Naxos; and the new rule was finally established by a large force of Thrakian mercenaries.

For Peisistratos himself there were to be no more alternations of disaster and success. He died tyrant of Athens, three and thirty years, it is said, after the time of his first usurpation. His sons, Hippias and Hipparchos, followed, we are told, the example of sobriety and moderation set by their father. But their political foresight failed to guard them against dangers arising from their pleasant vices; and Hipparchos in an evil hour sought to

527 B.C. (?) Death of Peisistratos, and subsequent history of his house.

1 This woman, who is called Phyê, is said to have become the wife of Hipparchos. The contempt with which Herodotos stigmatises the silliness of the Athenians for being thus duped seems to imply the existence of a general unbelief that manifestations of the gods could any longer take place. If we look to the narrative, the stratagem certainly

seems superfluous. If the union of the two factions had at once brought about the banishment of the despot, nothing more than the adhesion of one of them to Peisistratos would be needed to accomplish his restoration.

2 The presence of Peisistratos in Naxos for the purpose of helping Lygdamis is asserted by Herodotos, i. 64.